TSBD Doorway man - Oswald or Lovelady?

[Greg Burnham]

Monk,

The evidence and proof are laid out so painstakingly and so thoroughly that I am dumbfounded by these remarks. If you want to challenge our work, then explain what premises we have wrong or where our reasoning is faulty. Do that or pass by in silence. This work is "rock solid" or I would not have put my name on it. Ralph noticed that what mattered was not the faces but the shirts! He was absolutely determined to work this out and we have been dealing with it for months. If you can show where we have gone wrong, do that. Persumably, there is no better place to subject research on the assassination of JFK than on a JFK assassination research forum. You remarks here, I regret to say, are absurd.

Jim

Good Lord!!!

I agree that this is the place to submit new work for REVIEW. It is not the place to EXPECT a genuflection at the foot of the altar! I said as much in a KIND way. I have no interest in pursuing yet another angle of conspiracy proof. That is my prerogative. I have enough proof. If you want to pursue any subject of your choosing that is your prerogative and I have no objection to that--nor should it matter to you even if I did so object...unless you know me to be a man who will tell you the truth as I see it even if you don't like it. However, you are grossly out of line if you are unwilling to accept the criticism of other qualified students of the assassination without biting their head's off.

They are not buying it. Let it go. I don't mean "let the project go" I mean let it go that they are not buying it! Who cares? Obviously you and Cinque are absolutely convinced that you have it all figured out. So, why do you need anyone else's blessing? Moreover, I'm not invested in conducting ANY further research into this particular aspect of the assassination. That is my prerogative. My only intent in commenting at all was to suggest that your mastery of the art of persuasion is sorely lacking. Your expectations regarding the reception you believed you would enjoy from others is unrealistic. Are you guys right about your belief? I don't know, but I read all 20 pages and looked at hundreds of photographs (that I have already studied ad nauseum over a decade ago) placed in collages that FAILED to persuade. Are you guys right? I do not know. I don't even care. However, I do know that your expectations of others is way too high.

The absurdity of this thread does not reside in my earlier post, Jim. Your interpretation of that post, however, is an extension of it.

I will not challenge your premises for lack of interest, but, I will not be told to pass by silently if I don't. How little you know me, Jim, after all these years. That you fancy yourself capable of dictating what I respond to and what I pass silently by is the absurdity of absurdities.

Do you really think you can get away with speaking to me like that?

I will not say this twice.

[LR Trotter]

I am certainly no photography expert, but I do wonder about how accurate the doorway portion of the much discussed Altgens picture is. A somewhat small area when looking at something that appears to be close to the original size, and when blown up the possibilty of blending, at least to me, exists to create a false image. The Doorway Man's shirt also seems to blend somewhat to the jacket of the person on his left, but I also wonder about the one dimensional aspect as well as the angle factor of the doorway in the photograph as taken by Mr Altgens. Just some random thought, and hoping for a knowledgable comment or two.

[James H. Fetzer]

You are almost certainly right--that my expectations of others are

"way too high". My impression from your previous post was that

you thought it was pointless to post here, when I thought it was

--or ought to be--an appropriate place for considered criticism.


We are willing to be proven wrong, but none of the posts that

have yet appeared come to grips with the logic or the evidence

that we have presented here. Lots of assertions, denials, and

ad hominems, but no one has come to grips with the argument.


Researchers in the past focused on their faces. What we have

done is focus on their shirts, which transforms the situation.

There is nothing to "get away with". I am looking for some

rational response to the argument, which is the following:


Ignore their (ambiguous) faces and just focus on the shirts:

(1) We PROVE that Doorway Man was wearing Oswald's shirt;

(2) We PROVE that Doorway Man was not wearing Lovelady's,

which was either checkered or vertically striped, where

( a ) He was not wearing Lovelady's checkered shirt;

( b ) He was not wearing Lovelady's striped shirt;

Therefore,

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing,

the man in the doorway was Oswald. It's that simple.


What we seem to have here is alternative discussions

that do not defeat the force of the physical evidence. If

you want to defeat our argument, then you have to defeat

either (1) or (2), ( a ) or ( b ), which together jointly imply

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing, the

man in the doorway was Oswald. And no one contends,

(4) Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing. Q.E.D.


There is nothing personal about this. But an argument

can only be defeated by defeating its premises or its

reasoning. That's all I am looking for, my friend. It's

a matter of logic and evidence, which is being ignored.


And no one is obligated to pursue any specific line of

argument. Because this is a novel line of approach,

I thought there would be a rational response. But I

have seen no signs of intelligent life here at the DPF.

Monk,

The evidence and proof are laid out so painstakingly and so thoroughly that I am dumbfounded by these remarks. If you want to challenge our work, then explain what premises we have wrong or where our reasoning is faulty. Do that or pass by in silence. This work is "rock solid" or I would not have put my name on it. Ralph noticed that what mattered was not the faces but the shirts! He was absolutely determined to work this out and we have been dealing with it for months. If you can show where we have gone wrong, do that. Persumably, there is no better place to subject research on the assassination of JFK than on a JFK assassination research forum. You remarks here, I regret to say, are absurd.

Jim

Good Lord!!!

I agree that this is the place to submit new work for REVIEW. It is not the place to EXPECT a genuflection at the foot of the altar! I said as much in a KIND way. I have no interest in pursuing yet another angle of conspiracy proof. That is my prerogative. I have enough proof. If you want to pursue any subject of your choosing that is your prerogative and I have no objection to that--nor should it matter to you even if I did so object...unless you know me to be a man who will tell you the truth as I see it even if you don't like it. However, you are grossly out of line if you are unwilling to accept the criticism of other qualified students of the assassination without biting their head's off.

They are not buying it. Let it go. I don't mean "let the project go" I mean let it go that they are not buying it! Who cares? Obviously you and Cinque are absolutely convinced that you have it all figured out. So, why do you need anyone else's blessing? Moreover, I'm not invested in conducting ANY further research into this particular aspect of the assassination. That is my prerogative. My only intent in commenting at all was to suggest that your mastery of the art of persuasion is sorely lacking. Your expectations regarding the reception you believed you would enjoy from others is unrealistic. Are you guys right about your belief? I don't know, but I read all 20 pages and looked at hundreds of photographs (that I have already studied ad nauseum over a decade ago) placed in collages that FAILED to persuade. Are you guys right? I do not know. I don't even care. However, I do know that your expectations of others is way too high.

The absurdity of this thread does not reside in my earlier post, Jim. Your interpretation of that post, however, is an extension of it.

I will not challenge your premises for lack of interest, but, I will not be told to pass by silently if I don't. How little you know me, Jim, after all these years. That you fancy yourself capable of dictating what I respond to and what I pass silently by is the absurdity of absurdities.

Do you really think you can get away with speaking to me like that?

I will not say this twice.

[Greg Burnham]

Well Jim,

You almost succeeded in failing to insult your hosts, but you apparently cannot help yourself. Up to the end, you were doing just fine.

[Greg Burnham]

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3541[/ATTACH]

According to Lifton, this shows Lovelady (and his shirt) at about 2:00 sitting in a chair while Oswald is being marched past him in DPD headquarters. Say thank you.

[Greg Burnham]

Of course, in this picture, Oswald's T-shirt does not appear to be a V-neck at all! Perhaps this proves he was not Doorman, since Doorman's allegedly was V-necked. On the other hand, for those who insist Oswald is Doorman, I have a question: If Oswald's T-shirt can "become rounded" (see photo below) why can't Lovelady's T-shirt become a V-neck? It occurs to me that a rounded shirt can much more easily become V-necked, but an already stretched into a V-neck shirt will not likely become un-stretched without a washing!

Please do not say the only logical explanation precludes their having had the same "shirt tugging tic" or some other weak rebuttal. We are not talking about the odds of two people having a similar quirk. We are talking about physical evidence. If Oswald's shirt, seen below, is clearly rounded AFTER the event, how is it that (if he is Doorman) it was V-necked earlier in the day and has now somehow managed to re-acquire its round shape?

[ATTACH=CONFIG]3542[/ATTACH]

[Charles Drago]

Researchers in the past focused on their faces. What we have

done is focus on their shirts, which transforms the situation.

Nonsense.

This attempt to take credit for an all-new line of inquiry flies in the face of long-standing, serious, publicly posed questions about and studies of the shirts. So there is no "transformation
here, and to claim otherwise is to be, kindly stated, disingenuous.

(1) We PROVE that Doorway Man was wearing Oswald's shirt;

(2) We PROVE that Doorway Man was not wearing Lovelady's,

which was either checkered or vertically striped, where

( a ) He was not wearing Lovelady's checkered shirt;

( b ) He was not wearing Lovelady's striped shirt;

Therefore,

(3) Unless Lovelady was wearing Oswald's clothing,

the man in the doorway was Oswald. It's that simple.

Nonsense.

(1) All you have demonstrated is that Doorway Man is wearing a shirt that is all but identical to LHO's arrest shirt.

(3) Not "simple" so much as simple-minded, insofar as this "logic" is pitifully and blatantly uninformed by deep political insight and analysis.


What is the date and time and place of the earliest public presentation of Altgens 6 not in its cropped, no-doorway form, but in its entirety?

What is the time lag, if any, between public presentations of cropped and uncropped versions?

How does the Altgens 6 controversy fit into the long-established pattern of doppelganger phenomena in the JFK assassination and cover-up?

When will we learn to suspect/reject false A/B choices in this case and instead look for third alternatives?

[Seamus Coogan]

Lancer did it's easy. Kick Fetzer and Cinque off!!!!! Sorry, the 9/11 lot are stunned why JFK circles have JF involved with us. Our being far to polite and tolerant of BS is part of the reason. Kindly, ban Fetzer from here. Problem solved. I am very glad women have the choice with their babies. Sadly, I wish the mods didn't have such options with regard to termination. As a result they now have a 70 plus year old man running around in his nappies throwing his toys and crapping in his pants. Back to the egg is it Mr Fetzer?

Further what right do you have Mr Fetzer to demand answers too your piffle. When A) They have already been given by Al, GB, CD and co. B) You have failed to account for your pal Ron. C) Also failed to answer questions pertaining too your gross misappropriation of my comments concerning John Hankey. D) Actually hanging out with someone as loathed and disliked as Jon Hankey in research circles was bad enough. Now your hanging out with Cinque. As CD has said, how low with you stoop? What is not base enough for you? You remind me of Tiberius Caeser

Let's cut the the crap Mr Fetzer and move onto the fake MJ-12 documents. You know you want it. Next thing Lovelady will become the son of Elvis in a martian plot to kill Kennedy.
Yes, sadly many of us here believe you would buy that crap.

[Charles Drago]

Lancer did it's easy. Kick Fetzer and Cinque off.

Mind your own business, Seamus.

[Seamus Coogan]

Lancer did it's easy. Kick Fetzer and Cinque off.

Mind your own business, Seamus.

Hahahahahahaha. Just a suggestion old boy. Of course you could tell me to shove my head up my anus...I have to say after witnessing the JF acrobatic
company it's not for their want of trying.